Re: [Doh] [DNSOP] New I-D: draft-reid-doh-operator

"Martin Thomson" <> Tue, 19 March 2019 20:33 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4FBCB12867B for <>; Tue, 19 Mar 2019 13:33:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.701
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.701 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.b=ENB5vM5J; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.b=RVmkQ6i6
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xKZxAnJvLIHI for <>; Tue, 19 Mar 2019 13:33:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7BC911277CD for <>; Tue, 19 Mar 2019 13:33:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.nyi.internal []) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 99A092200A for <>; Tue, 19 Mar 2019 16:33:27 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from imap2 ([]) by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 19 Mar 2019 16:33:27 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; h=mime-version:message-id:in-reply-to:references:date:from:to :subject:content-type; s=fm1; bh=QMkFeNjDxN9I9aHGPTeEKWmy/24esqz Nc5VURpba25o=; b=ENB5vM5JcBqbL2lLg8AEwNpQl6+fwQpkNbPbPeBJaJ4yZQM FQcjpJUx+7SMJ4FigeJjKjAyrwI5ZCN9R3+XrLsE2x6BRhMK/CCwqjQQFpNJKgAK GcysX6EtDs7UGNFKOKUTstbhbotJlbTKhDagqTARCU+RMbjStDqHLQ+bUB2pvs9f BPz83SnTUKgjj8ZoDcFFpSsrUVHWltPKx+5IqIfRW2IVOix3LkN4g5hxDKRFltNC mQeNqxab2uhz5IQbQmoXPh1truCtdgFAJZF5TwFw27vuR0tz3AxyhmQNOIEjJOo8 X9CLWnKmLtEKFVLcd0fDbGiXAVfjBP/P3GKZ0uA==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=; h=content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-proxy :x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm2; bh=QMkFeN jDxN9I9aHGPTeEKWmy/24esqzNc5VURpba25o=; b=RVmkQ6i6RSaW+KespRRhwn j5GGAX/H9Ar0SlE0xeRDhjLt5rTMRuLhHZB8gbcO9yQvm2xFyoqD0Vdwr23mX4+e /YMEaK46EaLpfi8xCCqnM5QxxyCzB4/k0BqZ7k61j6FU9dPx0k2pnZQcOD4lfAF8 SDt3ebhyNol6ozTYPfBBe+SnHW+xEv8STfxgoFZYNAeDPJ1KWQFM5g1LIP8lBlAE 22GrrNPhJqxaKwsRGcJuPckFaFKMJjhSKDvIsvGFHssN/prSExpqq9vPZuiBdnoK JgNsl2YVGF9pdh6SpFAqHOaRNhGjnMIkqkgWmIOC6mo6ZRmBTrn6+XvtxM2AnD3Q ==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:F1KRXFoInAGy4-V2QvR6jMFcRR8clQe8oEHpXAk02-zDHFkXUcCfUA>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedutddrieeggddugeduucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucenucfjughrpefofgggkfgjfhffhffvufgtsehttd ertderredtnecuhfhrohhmpedfofgrrhhtihhnucfvhhhomhhsohhnfdcuoehmtheslhho figvnhhtrhhophihrdhnvghtqeenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepmhhtsehloh ifvghnthhrohhphidrnhgvthenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedt
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:F1KRXCSaaB9ODKSCjJOa4eQPNKEDbMSviWWMKn_K7nCXjo8PFnEVww> <xmx:F1KRXIOv17y8ZM-COtwTjUoxbwwXfXRQCG5iJKY8PGevdC2Zjm7LGA> <xmx:F1KRXAhpUF8DD4V7lSeLpCM1Kdy-roFRpx2WQFOHs7ZjSoiw-fVoSg> <xmx:F1KRXOtRzRow_EGmwrGxJjK7Qdoj3R9SRHBTfaunuEHm4oLdX8wbmw>
Received: by mailuser.nyi.internal (Postfix, from userid 501) id 13CF57C651; Tue, 19 Mar 2019 16:33:27 -0400 (EDT)
X-Mailer: Webmail Interface
User-Agent: Cyrus-JMAP/3.1.5-976-g376b1f3-fmstable-20190314v3
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Me-Personality: 92534000
Message-Id: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <1914607.BasjITR8KA@linux-9daj> <> <1900056.F7IrilhNgi@linux-9daj> <> <> <>
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2019 16:33:28 -0400
From: Martin Thomson <>
Content-Type: text/plain
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Doh] [DNSOP] New I-D: draft-reid-doh-operator
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: DNS Over HTTPS <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2019 20:33:30 -0000

I agree with Ted.

On Wed, Mar 20, 2019, at 04:46, Ted Hardie wrote:
> My apologies if I have misunderstood your point 
> here, but unless you also block all traffic for which you have seen no 
> resolution event, I believe that it is entirely possible to circumvent 
> the defense you describe.

The problem with blocking packets that can't be traced to a resolution event is that you need to catch all the resolution events. DNS doesn't have a monopoly on address resolution - I mean, that's the whole point of this discussion, isn't it?

Yes, there are a great many protocols that include a DNS query before every communication attempt, but not all.  If you are comfortable breaking or degrading all the other protocols, this is I guess an OK strategy.  I personally wouldn't call the thing that you get out the other end "Internet".  Of course, people routinely make that claim with only TCP ports 80 and 443 open.

> browsers treated all downloaded 
> JavaScript applications as potentially malign. 

Nicely understated.  Spend any amount of time on this problem and the word "potentially" just fades away.